Random Treatment Assignment Using Mathematical Equipoise for Comparative Effectiveness Trials
- 23 February 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Clinical and Translational Science
- Vol. 4 (1), 10-16
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00253.x
Abstract
In controlled clinical trials, random assignment of treatment is appropriate only when there is equipoise, that is, no clear preference among treatment options. However, even when equipoise appears absent because prior trials show, on average, one treatment yields superior outcomes, random assignment still may be appropriate for some patients and circumstances. In such cases, enrollment into trials may be assisted by real-time patient-specific predictions of treatment outcomes, to determine whether there is equipoise to justify randomization. The percutaneous coronary intervention thrombolytic predictive instrument (PCI-TPI) computes probabilities of 30-day mortality for patients having ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), if treated with thrombolytic therapy (TT), and if treated with PCI. We estimated uncertainty around differences in their respective predicted benefits using the estimated uncertainty of the model coefficients. Using the 2,781-patient PCI-TPI development dataset, we evaluated the distribution of predicted benefits for each patient. For three typical clinical situations, randomization was potentially warranted for 70%, 93%, and 80% of patients. Predictive models may allow real-time patient-specific determination of whether there is equipoise that justifies trial enrollment for a given patient. This approach may have utility for comparative effectiveness trials and for application of trial results to clinical practice.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposalTrials, 2010
- Towards agreement on best practice for publishing raw clinical trial dataTrials, 2009
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- When Averages Hide Individual Differences in Clinical TrialsAmerican Scientist, 2007
- Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: Are most of them misleading?American Heart Journal, 2006
- Simple Risk Stratification at Admission to Identify Patients With Reduced Mortality From Primary AngioplastyCirculation, 2005
- Evidence‐Based Medicine, Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, and the Trouble with AveragesThe Milbank Quarterly, 2004
- The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United StatesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- Ethical and Scientific Features of Cutoff-based Designs of Clinical TrialsMedical Decision Making, 1995
- Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical ResearchNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987